The  Progress  of  Reform, 


AN  ADDRESS  DELIVERED 


. AT  THE  ANNUAL  MEETING  OF 

The  National  Civil-Service  Reform  League 


HON.  CxEORGE  WILLIAM  CURTIS 


NEW  YORK: 

PUBLISHED  FOR  THE 

NATIONAL  CIVIL-SERVICE  REFORM  LEAGUE, 
1883. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  LEAGUE. 


Record  of  Conference  at  Newport,  1881.  Per  copy,  . io  cts. 

Proceeding's  at  the  Annual  Meeting  of  the  National  Civil-Service 
Reform  League,  1882,  with  address  by  George  William  Curtis. 
Per  copy,  io  cts.  Per  ioo,  . . . . . . $7  50 

The  same  for  1883.  Per  copy,  10  cts.  Per  100,  . . . $7  50 

The  Progress  of  Reform.  By  George  William  Curtis.  Per  copy,  3 cts. 

Per  100, $2  50 

Report  on  the  Expediency  of  Asking  Candidates  for  Public  Office 
their  Views  on  Civil-Service  Reform.  Per  copy,  10  cts. 
Per  100,  . . . . . . . $7  50 

Address  to  the  Reverend  Clergy  of  all  Denominations  in  the 
United  States.  By  John  Jay.  Per  copy,  2 cts.  Per  100,  $1  50 

Address  to  the  Voters  of  the  United  States.  By  George  William 
Curtis.  Per  copy,  1 ct.  Per  100, 75  cts. 

The  Four  Years’  Term,  or  Rotation  in  Office.  By  Frederic  W. 
Whitridge.  Per  copy,  3 cts.  Per  100,  . . . $2  00 


* PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  ASSOCIATION. 

I.  Purposes  of  the  Civil-Service  Reform  Association,  including 

its  constitution.  Per  copy,  5 cts.  Per  100,  . . $2  75 

II.  The  Beginning  of  the  Spoils  System  in  the  National  Gov- 
ernment, 1829-30.  (Reprinted,  by  permission,  from  Parton’s 
“Life  of  Andrew  Jackson.”)  Per  copy,  5 cts.  Per  100,  $3  00 

III.  The  Spoils  System  and  Civil-Service  Reform  in  the  Custom- 

House  and  Post-Office  at  New  York.  By  Dorman  B.  Eaton. 
136  pages,  8 vo.  Per  copy,  25  cts.  Per  100,  . . $10  00 

IV.  Civil-Service  Reform  in  the  New  York  Custom-House.  By 

Willard  Brown.  Per  copy,  5 cts.  Per  100,  . . $3  00 

V.  Term  and  Tenure  of  Office.  By  Dorman  B.  Eaton.  Second 
edition,  abridged.  Per  copy,  15  cts.  Per  100,  . $10  00 

VII.  The  Danger  of  an  Office-Holding  Aristocracy.  By  E.  L. 

Godkin.  Per  copy,  5 cts.  Per  100,  . . . $3  00 

What  the  Competitive  Examinations  really  are.  Per  copy,  3 cts. 
Per  100,  $2  00 

Daniel  Webster  and  the  Spoils  System.  An  extract  from  Senator 
Bayard’s  oration  at  Dartmouth  College,  June,  1882.  Per  copy,  3 cts. 
Per  100,  . . . . . • .$15° 

The  “Pendleton  Bill.”  Bill  to  Regulate  and  Improve  the  Civil  Service 
of  the  United  States,  as  approved.  Per  copy,  3 cts.  Per  100,  $1  50 

Orders  for  the  publications  will  be  filled  by  William  Potts,  Secretary, 
4 Pine  Street,  New  York. 


The  Progress  of  Reform, 

AN  ADDRESS  DELIVERED 

AT  THE  ANNUAL  MEETING  OF 

The  National  Civil-Service  Reform  League 


BY 

HON.  GEORGE  WILLIAM  CURTIS 


NEW  YORK: 

PUBLISHED  FOR  THE 

NATIONAL  CIVIL-SERVICE  REFORM  LEAGUE, 
1883. 


PRESS  OF 

WtLLIAM  S.  GOTTSBERGER. 
i i Murray  St,  New  York. 


The  Progress  of  Reform. 


Two  years  ago  a conference  of  friends  of  reform  in  the  Civil 
Service  was  held  in  this  place.  The  conference  organized  this 
National  League  and  passed  the  following  resolution  : — 

Resolved,  that  the  bill  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Mr.  Pendleton  of 
Ohio  provides  a constitutional,  practicable,  and  effective  measure  for  the 
remedy  of  the  abuse  known  as  the  spoils  system,  and  that  the  associations 
represented  in  the  conference  will  use  every  honorable  means,  in  the  press, 
on  the  platform,  and  by  petition,  to  secure  its  passage. 

That  resolution  was  adopted  on  the  nth  of  August,  1881.  On 
the  1 6th  of  January  1883,  upon  the  earnest  recommendation  of 
President  and  by  overwhelming  majorities  in  Congress,  the  Pen- 
dleton bill  became  a law,  and  on  the  16th  of  July,  1883  amid 
the  general  applause  of  the  country  it  went  into  effect.  If  the 
year  which  ended  at  our  last  annual  meeting  could  be  truly  called 
the  year  of  awakening,  that  which  ends  to  day  may  be  as  truly 
described  as  the  year  of  achievement.  I doubt  if  any  reform  of 
""T  similar  scope  and  importance  has  ever  commended  itself  more 
'^rapidly  to  public  approval,  and  nothing  could  more  fully  justify 
c confident  and  patient  reliance  upon  a persistent  and  reasonable 
^ appeal  to  public  opinion  than  the  progress  of  this  movement. 

-y  When  we  met  here  a year  ago,  Congress  was  still  in  session. 
.Jf  The  Pendleton  bill  had  been  reported  to  the  Senate,  but  no 
^action  had  been  taken.  The  House  of  Representatives,  with 


4 


ribald  sneers  at  the  project  of  reform,  had  contemptuously  granted 
the  President  three-fifths  of  the  pittance  which  he  had  “ urgently” 
asked  to  enable  him  to  continue  efforts  of  reform  which  had  been 
begun.  The  record  of  the  proceedings  upon  this  subject  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  last  summer  is  one  of  the  most  dis- 
graceful passages  in  the  history  of  Congress.  Members  not  only 
ridiculed  the  suggestion  of  reform  in  administrative  methods,  but 
they  summarily  swept  aside  the  President’s  veto  of  extravagant 
appropriations.  At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  league,  in  speaking 
of  the  conduct  of  certain  members  of  Congress  I ventured  to  say 
that  they  were  singularly  ignorant  of  the  tendency  and  force  of 
public  opinion,  and  that  reckless  defiance  of  public  intelligence 
was  a perilous  record  upon  which  to  go  to  the  country.  The 
issue  was  plainly  made  and  an  appeal  taken  at  the  polls.  The 
result  of  the  election  was  startling  and  impressive.  The  most 
conspicuous  enemies  of  reform  were  dismissed  by  their  consti- 
tuents from  the  public  service,  and,  although  it  is  not  always  easy 
precisely  to  define  the  significance  of  a general  election,  it  was 
universally  conceded  that,  whatever  else  the  result  might  mean,  it 
was  a clear  and  decisive  demand  of  the  country  for  Civil-Service 
Reform.  The  response  of  Congress  was  immediate,  and  never  was 
the  flexibility  of  a popular  system  more  signally  displayed. 

The  Congress  which  had  adjourned  in  August  laughing  at 
reform,  heard  the  thunder  of  the  elections  in  November  and 
reassembled  in  December.  If  members  had  been  draped  in 
sheets  and  had  carried  candles,  they  could  not  have  borne  a more 
penitential  aspect.  On  the  4th  of  December  the  President  sent 
in  his  message.  He  frankly  urged  the  passage  of  the  Pendleton 
bill  or  of  some  other  equally  effective  measure,  and  promised  his 


5 


hearty  cooperation  in  enforcing  it.  On  the  same  day  in  the 
House,  Mr.  Kasson  introduced  a bill  for  the  better  regulation  of 
the  civil  service;  Mr.  Herbert  a bill  to  prohibit  political  assess- 
ments; Mr.  Hiscock  a resolution  to  facilitate  the  range  of  a 
general  reform  bill;  and  the  rules  of  the  House  were  suspended  in 
order  to  direct  the  committee  upon  reform  to  report  at  any  time. 
Nothing  could  restrain  the  righteous  zeal  for  reform.  On  the  6th 
a stringent  inquiry  was  proposed  by  Mr.  Beck  in  the  Senate  into 
the  system  of  political  assessments.  On  the  7th  additional  copies 
of  the  Pendleton  bill,  for  which,  it  was  stated,  there  is  “ much 
call,”  were  ordered  printed.  On  the  9th  the  committee  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  on  reform  in  the  civil  service  reported 
what  was  known  as  the  Kasson  bill  as  a substitute  for  the  Pen- 
dleton bill.  On  the  same  day  in  the  Senate,  in  reply  to  an 
inquiry,  Mr.  Pendleton  said  that  he  proposed  to  make  his  bill  a 
special  order  for  the  nth.  During  all  these  days  the  debate 
upon  the  political  assessments  was  proceeding  in  the  Senate,  and 
upon  this  day,  the  9th,  a comprehensive  and  effective  bill  pro- 
hibiting such  assessments  under  severe  penalties  was  introduced 
by  Mr.  Hawley,  and  was  referred  to  the  committee  on  civil  service 
and  retrenchment  of  which  he  was  chairman.  This  bill  is  com- 
prised in  the  nth  and  15th  sections  of  the  reform  bill  as  finally 
passed.  On  the  nth  of  December  Mr.  Pendleton  called  up  the 
bill  known  by  his  name,  which  was  temporarily  laid  aside  until  the 
next  day.  On  the  12th  the  Senate  ordered  the  reports  upon  the 
administration  of  the  post-office  and  custom-house  in  New  York, 
in  which  the  reformed  system  was  enforced,  to  be  laid  before  it. 
The  Pendleton  bill  was  then  read  for  the  first  time  with  certain 
carefully  considered  amendments,  and  then,  on  the  8th  day  of 


6 


the  session,  Mr.  Pendleton  in  an  elaborate  speech  opened  the 
debate. 

On  the  same  day  the  Kasson  bill  as  amended  was  reported 
to  the  House.  Mr.  Willis  of  Kentucky  and  Mr.  Bayne  of  Penn- 
sylvania introduced  two  substitutes  which  were  substantially  the 
Pendleton  bill.  On  the  13th  Mr.  Kasson  sought  to  press  his  bill 
in  the  House,  but  Mr.  Hiscock,  disclaiming  any  desire  to  delay 
legislation  upon  the  subject,  preferred  to  await  the  action  of  the 
Senate,  and  the  House  took  up  an  appropriation  bill.  On  the 
same  day  the  Senate  referred  the  proposal  for  inquiry  into  the 
system  of  political  assessments  to  the  committee  on  the  judiciary. 
It  rained  and  hailed  reform.  On  the  15th  of  December  in  the 
House,  Mr.  Harris  of  Massachusetts  introduced  a reform  bill.  On 
the  20th  Mr.  Dawes  in  the  Senate  relinquished  the  bill  which  he 
had  proposed  to  substitute,  and  advocated  the  passage  of  the 
Pendleton  bill.  On  the  23rd^Mr.  Edmunds  from  the  committee 
on  the  judiciary  reported  a bill  prohibiting  assessments.  On  the 
24th  Mr.  Hawley  from  the  committee  on  civil  service  and 
retrenchment  offered  four  sections,  including  his  bill  of  the  9th, 
which  are  now  the  nth,  12th,  13th,  and  15th  sections  of  the 
reform  act.  The  debate  in  the  Senate  had  continued  for  a fort- 
night, and  the  opposition,  at  last  aware  of  the  positive  demand  of 
the  country,  had  sought  to  defeat  reform  indirectly  by  amend- 
ments intended  to  cripple  the  bill.  Mr.  Hawley,  as  chairman  of  the 
committee  which  had  reported  the  bill  at  the  previous  session, 
had  charge  of  it  through  the  discussion,  and  displayed  the  most 
excellent  tact  and  temper,  acuteness  and  agility,  in  perceiving  and 
baffling  the  blows  which  were  meant  to  disable  and,  if  possible,  to 
destroy  it.  During  the  progress  of  the  debate,  Messrs.  Dorman 


7 


B.  Eaton  and  Everett  P.  Wheeler  went  to  Washington  on  behalf 
of  this  league,  and  by  their  familiarity  with  the  details  ot  the 
bill,  as  well  as  with  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  abuses  to  be 
corrected  and  with  the  principles  and  history  of  the  reform  move- 
ment, rendered  great  service  to  the  cause.  On  the  27th  of 
December,  three  weeks  and  two  days  from  the  opening  of  the 
session,  the  Pendleton  bill  passed  the  Senate  by  a vote  of  38  yeas 
to  5 nays,  33  senators  being  absent.  On  the  following  day  the  bill 
prohibiting  political  assessments,  which  Mr.  Edmunds  had  reported 
from  the  judiciary  committee,  was  passed,  in  addition  to  the  rigor- 
ous prohibitory  provisions  already  incorporated  in  the  reform  bill. 

On  the  30th  of  December  the  Pendleton  bill  and  the  Ed- 
munds assessment  bill  were  received  by  the  House  from  the 
Senate,  and  were  referred  to  the  committee  on  reform  in  the  civil 
service  with  leave  to  report  at  any  time.  On  the  same  day  the 
House  adjourned  until  the  2d  of  January.  On  the  4th  Mr. 
Kasson  reported  the  Pendleton  bill  without  amendment,  and 
hoped  that  the  debate  would  be  ended  in  a week.  A confused 
colloquy  began  upon  the  rightful  precedence  of  other  bills,  in  the 
midst  of  which  Mr.  Cox  of  New  York  proposed  amid  applause 
that,  as  the  Pendleton  bill  had  been  thoroughly  discussed  in  the 
Senate,  it  should  be  at  once  put  upon  its  passage  in  the  House. 
The  disposition  of  the  House  was  unmistakable,  but  a desperate 
effort  was  made  to  defer  the  vote  by  sending  the  bill  to  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole.  The  speaker  steadily  ruled  that  the  House 
would  proceed  to  consider  the  bill,  and  recognized  Mr.  Kasson. 
The  bill  was  read.  Amid  great  excitement  and  applause  Mr. 
Kasson  moved  the  previous  question.  It  was  ordered.  A demand 
for  debate  was  made  amidst  a loud  cry  for  the  vote.  The  speaker 


8 


ruled  that  30  minutes  for  debate  were  allowed  by  the  rules  upon 
a bill  which  had  not  been  debated  and  upon  which  the  previous 
question  had  been  ordered.  A rapid  debate  followed.  Amend- 
ments were  attempted,  but  they  were  ruled  out  of  order.  Appeals 
were  made  to  amend  by  unanimous  consent  and  to  recommit  with 
instructions.  But  every  device  to  obtain  delay  and  to  strike  at 
the  bill  was  happily  baffled.  The  30  minutes  expired,  and  Mr. 
Kasson  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays  upon  the  passage  of  the  bill. 
They  were  ordered,  and  by  a vote  of  155  yeas  to  47  nays,  and 
with  87  members  not  voting,  the  Pendleton  bill  was  passed. 

The  House  which  was  so  eager  to  make  the  bill  a law  that  it 
would  not  tolerate  debate  and  loudly  cheered  the  proposal  of  an 
immediate  vote,  was  the  same  house  that  five  months  before  had 
derisively  and  angrily  refused  to  give  a paltry  sum  and  to  aid  a 
single  experiment  of  reform.  Members  who  could  not  laugh  loud 
enough  at  the  ridiculous  whim  of  transacting  the  public  business 
upon  business  principles,  now  tumbled  over  each  other  in  their 
breathless  haste  to  make  that  whim  the  national  policy.  From 
that  moment  that  Congress  met,  this  question  had  taken  prece- 
dence of  all  others.  As  Mr.  Willis  truly  said,  “ Bill  had  followed 
bill,  resolution  had  crowded  upon  resolution,”  and  Congress  did 
not  pause  until  the  duty  which  it  felt  to  be  the  most  imperative 
was  performed.  The  Congressional  Record  of  December  5th 
records  the  meeting  of  Congress.  The  record  of  January  5th 
records  the  passage  of  the  Pendleton  bill.  I have  told  the  story 
in  detail,  for  I know  no  more  amusing  and  significant  story  in  the 
history  of  American  politics. 

But  the  history  of  the  year  discloses  other  striking  results  of 
the  public  interest  in  the  subject.  A year  ago  the  case  of  Gen. 


9 


Curtis,  an  employe  of  the  United  States  indicted  for  receiving 
political  assessments,  was  still  pending.  He  had  been  convicted 
on  the  25th  of  May  in  the  circuit  court  of  the  United  States  for 
the  southern  district  of  New  York.  Upon  his  appeal,  the  full 
bench  of  the  court  on  the  20th  of  July  affirmed  the  constitution- 
ality of  the  law.  Gen.  Curtis  appealed  to  the  supreme  court,  and, 
at  the  October  term,  the  chief  justice  of  the  United  States  delivered 
the  opinion  of  the  court  sustaining  that  of  the  circuit  court  and 
affirming  the  constitutionality  of  such  prohibitory  legislation.  In 
the  election  of  the  last  autumn  in  all  the  States  where  there  were 
reform  associations,  congressional  and  state  candidates  were 
closely  questioned,  and  their  replies  were  published  that  their 
position  upon  the  question  of  reform  might  be  clearly  understood. 
In  the  9th  congressional  district  of  Massachusetts,  the  election 
turned  upon  that  question.  Theodore  Lyman  was  nominated  dis- 
tinctively as  a reform  candidate,  and  he  was  elected  by  a decisive 
majority. 

The  general  result  of  the  election  was  so  universally  inter- 
preted as  a demand  for  reform  that  it  was  not  surprising  that  the 
State  Legislatures  which  assembled  at  the  beginning  of  the  year 
showed  the  same  interest  in  the  question  which  was  apparent  in 
Congress.  Bills  and  resolutions  upon  the  subject  were  introduced 
in  the  Legislatures  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio.  In 
Ohio  no  action  was  taken.  In  Pennsylvania  a general  bill  was 
defeated,  and  a. very  moderate  prohibition  of  political  assessments 
was  adopted.  In  New  York  a bill  modeled  upon  the  Pendleton 
bill,  mandatory  in  the  State  and  permissive  in  cities  of  50,000  in- 
habitants and  upward,  was  prepared  by  the  New  York  association. 
With  this  was  combined  another  bill  introduced  by  Mr.  Miller  of 


the  city  of  New  York,  giving  very  searching  and  extensive  author- 
ity of  inquiry  into  the  municipal  service.  The  bill  contained  also 
the  most  stringent  prohibition  of  political  assessments  which  has 
yet  been  proposed.  Petitions  favoring  reform  legislation  were 
presented  from  every  part  of  the  State.  The  New  York  reform 
association  was  ably  represented  before  the  committees  which  had 
charge  of  the  subject.  The  republican  and  democratic  young 
men’s  clubs  of  Brooklyn  especially  interested  themselves  in  the 
passage  of  the  bill  to  which  the  governor  of  the  state  was  known 
to  be  favorable.  It  had  sagacious  and  intrepid  friends  and  advo- 
cates upon  the  floor  of  the  Legislature,  but  action  was  delayed 
until  the  very  closing  hours  of  the  session,  when,  without  amend- 
ment and  by  an  enormous  majority,  the  reform  bill  was  passed.  It 
was  immediately  signed  by  the  governor,  who  simultaneously 
nominated  a commission  which  was  the  earnest  of  his  own  good 
faith  and  of  the  firm  and  honest  administration  of  the  law.  This 
event  is  second  only  in  importance  to  the  passage  of  the  reform 
bill  by  Congress.  It  was  in  the  State  of  New  York  that  under  the 
council  of  appointment  the  spoils  system  was  adopted  nearly  a 
century  ago.  It  was  the  politicians  of  New  York  who  gave  it  its 
first  organized  impulse.  It  was  in  response  to  Henry  Clay’s  taunt 
at  the  New  York  system  that  a'  New  York  senator  made  the 
famous  defense  that  to  the  victor  belong  the  spoils  of  his  enemy. 
It  is  in  New  York  that  the  evils  and  the  perils,  the  dishonor,  the 
corruption,  the  degradation  of  the  system  have  been  most  fully 
displayed.  And  it  was  in  New  York  also  that  the  first  vigorous, 
resolute,  and  unquailing  opposition  to  the  evil  system  was  organized. 
It  was  most  fitting,  therefore,  that  the  chief  of  sinners  among  the 
States  should  lead  the  van  of  reform,  for  the  political  reform 


II 


that  is  possible  in  New  York  is  practicable  everywhere  in  the 
country. 

At  the  last  meeting  of  the  league  a resolution  was  adopted 
requesting  the  president  to  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  national 
executive  the  letter  and  order  of  Mr.  Webster  as  secretary  of  state, 
upon  the  conflict  of  patronage  with  the  freedom  of  elections.  But 
at  a meeting  of  the  executive  committee  held  later  in  the  year,  it 
was  agreed  that,  in  the  situation  then  existing,  such,  action  for  the 
present  was  inexpedient.  During  the  year  the  attitude  of  the 
national  executive  toward  reform  has  been  upon  the  whole,  and 
notwithstanding  certain  inconsistencies  of  conduct,  one  of  friendly 
observation.  The  efficiency  of  the  Pendleton  bill  depended  at 
the  beginning  wholly  upon  the  good  faith  of  the  President.  Had 
he  desired  to  discredit  and  to  defeat  its  purpose,  he  had  only  to 
appoint  an  unfriendly  commission.  But  the  selection  as  the  first 
named  commissioner  of  one  of  the  ablest,  sincerest,  and  most  de- 
voted friends  of  reform,  Mr.  Dorman  B.  Eaton  of  New  York,  and  the 
association  with  him  of  Dr.  Gregory  of  Illinois  and  J udge  Thoman 
of  Ohio,  was  the  conclusive  earnest  of  the  President’s  desire  to 
give  the  reform  system  fair  play.  This  is  the  more  significant  be- 
cause the  President’s  previous  course,  and  his  faith  in  the  spoils 
system  as  essential  to  effective  party  organization,  had  excited 
great  apprehension  that  he  would  use  his  vast  patronage  in  a man- 
ner to  confirm  and  aggravate  the  evils  of  that  system.  But  this 
apprehension  has  not  been  justified.  In  certain  instances  indeed, 
and  especially  in  the  removal  of  the  late  naval  officer  of  New 
York,  one  of  the  most  efficient  and  experienced  officers  in  the 
public  service,  there  was  a flagrant  disregard  of  the  essential  prin- 
ciples of  reform.  But  the  ingenious  manner  in  which  this  disre- 


12 


gard  was  veiled  in  an  apparent  desire  to  promote  the  interests  of 
reform  was  in  itself  evidence  of  the  President’s  consciousness  of  the 
public  expectation  that  tried  and  capable  officers  shall  not  be  re- 
moved under  the  plea  of  the  expiration  of  their  terms.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  president’s  steady  refusal  to  satisfy  the  faction 
of  his  party  which  demands  that  the  public  patronage  shall  be 
prostituted  to  a factional  interest,  is  most  honorable  to  the  chief 
magistrate;  and,  whatever  exception  may  be  justly  taken  to  many 
acts  of  the  admistration  in  regard  to  appointments  and  removals, 
it  will  not  be  denied  by  fair  men  of  every  party  that  a President 
whose  accession  by  means  of  a most  tragical  event  was  generally 
regarded  as  a serious  misfortune,  if  not  calamity,  has  not  only  al- 
layed all  apprehension  of  a gross  misuse  of  the  patronage  of  the 
government,  but  by  his  pacific  and  temperate  administration  has 
gained  the  approval  of  the  country. 

The  league  also  at  the  last  annual  meeting  directed  the  ap- 
pointment of  three  committees  to  issue  respectively  addresses  to 
the  voters,  to  the  clergy,  and  to  the  educational  authorities  of  the 
United  States,  in  promotion  of  the  general  objects  of  the  league. 
The  committees  were  appointed  and  the  addresses  were  duly  is- 
sued with  the  exception  to  that  of  the  friends  of  education,  which 
is  not  yet  fully  prepared.  During  the  year  also  the  progress  of  the 
cause  has  had  a most,  faithful  chronicler  in  the  Civil  Service 
Record,  published  by  the  reform  associations  of  Boston  and  Cam- 
bridge. The  Massachusetts  associations  and  those  in  Philadelphia, 
Baltimore,  Buffalo,  Pittsburg,  and  St.  Louis  have  been  central 
points  of  interest  and  activity  for  their  various  sections  of  the 
country.  On  all  sides  there  are  signs  of  unflagging  spirit,  and 
there  is  no  reason  to  fear  that  the  mutual  congratulation  and  com- 


l3 


pliment  which  are  natural  in  this  assembly  and  at  this  hour,  will 
paralyze  the  energy  or  relax  the  care  and  foresight  of  the  friends  of 
reform.  The  passage  of  the  Pendleton  bill  by  Congress  and  of 
the  State  bill  in  New  York;  the  appointment  of  the  commissioners 
and  their  devotion  to  their  duty;  the  opinion  of  the  supreme 
court  and  the  prohibition  of  political  assessments,  with  the  general 
public  interest  on  the  subject  of  reform,  are  all  but  incentives  to 
continued  effort.  The  passage  of  the  Pendleton  bill  is  the  begin- 
ning, not  the  end,  of  reform.  It  prescribe  methods  of  appointment 
to  certain  classes  of  positions  in  the  civil  service.  But  it  is  to  be 
extended  to  all  similar  positions  only  by  direction  of  the  President, 
and  the  President  will  act  only  in  deference  to  public  sentiment. 
There  are  also  large  and  most  important  branches  of  the  service, 
such  as  that  which  includes  laborers,  to  which  the  reformed  system 
is  yet  to  be  adapted,  but  whose  inclusion  is  demanded  by  the  very 
purposes  of  reform.  So  long  as  laborers  are  appointed  by  mere 
favoritism,  one  of  the  strongest^veapons  of  the  spoils  system  re- 
mains. But  certainly  the  same  good  sense  which  skilfully  applies  the 
reformed  method  to  the  selection  of  night  inspectors  of  customs,  will 
readily  provide  for  applying  it  also  to  the  appointment  of  laborers. 

Another  most  important  step  yet  to  be  taken  is  the  applica- 
tion of  the  reformed  system  to  the  municipal  service.  The  Mas- 
sachusetts league  of  reform  associations  has  appointed  a very  able 
committee  to  inquire  into  the  whole  subject;  and,  most  fortunately 
for  the  enquiry  and  the  experiment,  one  of  the  cities  in  the  state 
of  New  York  of  50,000  inhabitants  and  upwards  is  the  city  of 
Brooklyn,  and  the  Mayor  of  Brooklyn  is  one  of  the  most  practical 
and  strenuous  friends  of  reform,  Seth  Low.  He  sought  an  early 
conference  with  the  New  York  commission,  and  I am  very  sure 


14 


that  the  deliberations  of  the  Massachusetts  committee,  the  New 
York  commission,  and  Mayor  Low  will  result  in  a practicable 
scheme  of  spoiling  the  municipal  spoilers. 

But  the  especial  object  to  which  the  National  League  will 
devote  its  attention,  now  that  the  Pendleton  bill  has  become  a 
law,  has  been  already  declared  by  its  executive  committee  on  the 
7th  of  March,  1883.  This  object  is  the  repeal  of  the  United  States 
statutes  which  limit  the  term  of  most  of  the  subordinate  officers 
to  four  years,  and  which  result  in  practically  establishing  that  term 
for  all  offices,  places,  and  employments  in  the  service,  except  such 
as  are  specifically  excepted.  The  mischievous  practice  is  strongly 
intrenched  in  tradition,  and  it  is  speciously  defended.  But  it  was 
introduced  to  prostitute  the  public  service  to  personal  control,  and 
it  is  one  of  the  chief  sources  of  the  abuses  which  have  aroused 
public  attention  and  indignation.  The  first  law  upon  this  subject 
was  approved  by  President  Monroe  on  the  15th  of  May,  1820. 
Until  that  time  the  power  of  execi&ive  removal,  which  was  affirmed 
by  the  first  Congress,  was  thought  to  render  such  a limitation  un- 
necessary. This  decision  of  the  first  Congress,  consequent  mainly 
upon  the  urgency  of  Madison,  has  been  regarded  as  a conclusive 
interpretation  of  the  constitution.  But  Madison  was  very  careful 
to  denounce  in  advance  the  abuses  which  have  arisen  under  that 
interpretation,  by  declaring,  in  the  most  emphatic  and  unmistaka- 
ble manner,  that  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  removal  for  any 
reason  not  connected  with  the  efficiency  of  the  service  would  sub- 
ject the  president  to  impeachment.  Mr.  Jefferson  in  his  famous 
reply  to  the  remonstrance  of  the  merchants  of  New  Haven  against 
the  removal  of  the  collector  at  that  port,  commenting  upon  the 
action  of  his  predecessor  which  he  considered  unjustifiable, 


1S 


used  the  phrase  which  has  become  familiar;  “ I shall  correct  the 
procedure  and,  that  done,  return  with  joy  to  that  state  of  things 
where  the  only  question  concerning  a candidate  shall  be,  ‘ Is  he 
honest,  is  he  capable,  is  he  faithful  to  the  constitution  ?’  ” In  these 
words  Mr.  Jefferson  recognized  that  honesty,  capacity,  and  patriotic 
fidelity  had  been  the  considerations  which  determined  appoint- 
ment and  removal. 

The  constitutional  intention  is  indisputable  that  appointments 
shall  be  made  solely  upon  public  considerations,  and  that  the 
officer  appointed  shall  serve  as  long  as  he  discharges  his  duty 
properly  and.  satisfactorily.  This  view  at  once  draws  the  line 
between  political  and  non-political  offices.  Public  considerations 
plainly  require  that  those  who  are  selected  to  represent  or  to  carry 
into  effect  the  general  policy  which  the  country  has  approved  at 
the  polis  shall  be  friendly  to  it.  Washington  stated  the  principle 
clearly  in  saying  “ I shall  not,  whilst  I have  the  honor  to  admin- 
ister the  government,  bring  a man  into  any  office  of  conse- 
quence, knowingly,  whose  political  tenets  are  adverse  to  the 
measures  which  the  general  government  is  pursuing,  for  this  in 
my  opinion  would  be  a sort  of  political  suicide : that  it  would 
embarrass  its  movements  is  certain.”  This  is  the  true  principle. 
But  it  is  not  a principle  applicable  to  subordinate  ministerial 
officers,  as  the  republican  Jefferson  and  the  federalist  Bayard  both 
distinctly  stated  during  the  delay  in  the  election  of  1800.  And 
even  one  of  the  most  devoted  of  party  politicians,  James 
Buchanan,  said  in  the  Senate  in  1839 : “ I should  not  become  an 
inquisitor  of  the  political  opinions  of  the  subordinate  office- 
holders who  are  receiving  salaries  of  some  $800  or  $1000  a 
year.”  This  was  the  constitutional  theory  and  practice  for  the 


i6 


first  generation  after  the  establishment  of  the  government.  But 
as  the  number  of  officers  increased,  the  power  of  patronage  was 
proportionally  extended  and  the  opportunity  to  misuse  it  became 
irresistible. 

The  year  1820  marks  a distinct  epoch  in  the  progress  of  the 
spoils  system.  On  the  16th  of  December,  1819,  at  the  opening 
of  Congress,  Mr.  Dickerson  of  New  Jersey,  a devoted  friend  of 
Mr.  Crawford  who  was  then  secretary  of  the  treasury  and  a can- 
didate for  the  presidential  nomination,  offered  a resolution  of 
inquiry  into  the  expediency  of  altering  laws  so  as  to  provide  a 
limited  term  for  certain  officers  mentioned,  who  should  be  subject 
to  removal  as  before.  John  Quincy  Adams  records  that  Mr. 
Crawford  told  him  that  he  drew  the  bill,  and  Mr.  Adams  adds  that, 
while  its  ostensible  object  was  to  secure  the  accountability  of 
certain  collecting  officers,  the  real  purpose  was  to  secure  for  Mr. 
Crawford  the  influence  of  all  the  incumbents  in  office  upon  peril 
of  displacement,  and  of  five  or  ten  times  as  many  ravenous  office- 
seekers  eager  to  supplant  them.  The  inquiry  proposed  by  Mr. 
Dickerson  was  ordered  on  the  20th  of  December.  On  the  20th 
of  April  the  finance  committee,  to  which  it  had  been  referred, 
reported  a bill  accordingly;  on  the  21st  it  was  read  the  second 
time;  and  on  the  5th  of  May,  after  some  unimportant  amendments 
and  without  debate,  the  bill  was  read  a third  time  and  passed  by 
a vote  of  29  yeas  to  4 nays.  On  the  9th  of  May  it  was  received 
in  the  House.  On  the  nth  it  was  reported  without  amendment, 
passed  without  debate,  and  was  approved  on  the  15th  of  May. 
The  bill  had  apparently  attracted  no  especial  attention  or  interest. 
But  the  real  object  of  the  bill,  Mr.  Adams  says,  was  accomplished. 
The  custom-house  officers  throughout  the  Union,  the  district 


*7 


attorneys,  marshals,  registers  of  the  land-officers,  receivers  of 
public  moneys,  paymasters  in  the  army,  and  all  their  family  con- 
nections became  “ ardent  Crawfordites.” 

In  November  of  the  same  year,  Gov.  DeWitt  Clinton  of  New 
York  said  in  his  message  at  the  opening  of  the  Legislature  that  the 
power  of  the  general  administration  had  increased  with  its  patron- 
age, and  he  declared  it  to  be  his  solemn  duty  to  protest  against 
the  interference  of  the  national  office-holders  as  “ an  organized 
and  disciplined  corps”  in  the  state  elections.  An  angry  reply 
was  made  by  a joint  committee  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly.  But 
their  report  shows  plainly  that,  while  the  just  and  reasonable  prac- 
tice of  the  earlier  administrations  still  generally  prevailed, — so  that 
the  collector  of  New  York  alleges  that  the  political  conduct  of  his 
subordinates  was  wholly  uninfluenced  by  him  and  that  their 
political  sentiments  were  indifferent  or  unknown  to  him, — yet  it 
shows  no  less  that  the-  political  abuse  of  the  national  patronage 
had  begun.  In  November,  1820,  Mr.  Jefferson  writes  to  Mr. 
Madison  totally  condemning  the  four-years’  law  as  introducing 
fatal  intrigue  and  corruption ; as  sapping  the  constitutional  func- 
tions of  the  President ; placing  every  office  once  every  four  years 
at  the  disposition  of  the  Senate;  stimulating  the  constant  greed  of 
place;  breeding  the  utmost  sycophancy  to  senators;  and  engaging 
them  in  endless  cabals  to  turn  out  and  put  in  their  parasites.  Mr. 
Madison  replies  that  the  law  is  certainly  pregnant  with  all  the 
mischiefs  which  Mr.  Jefferson  describes.  It  disregards,  he  says, 
the  important  distinction  between  the  legislative  function  of 
repealing  or  modifying  the  office  and  the  executive  function  of 
displacing  the  officer.  Mr.  Madison  adds  that  even  the  legisla- 
tive modification,  if  designed  to  reestablish  the  office  and  to  allow 


i8 


a new  appointment,  would  be  a violation  of  the  constitution.  If 
the  principle  of  the  statute  is  sound,  he  argues,  Congress  may  limit 
the  term  of  appointments  to  a single  year  or  to  the  next  meeting 
of  Congress — to  a week,  to  a day,  as  John  Quincy  Adams 
remarks,  commenting  upon  Madison’s  view — and  so  annihilate 
the  executive  power.  Mr.  Jefferson  had  said  that  the  President 
must  have  signed  the  law  without  reading  it,  because  the  Senate, 
which  thus  legally  grasped  his  power,  would  never  consent  to 
relinquish  it.  Mr.  Madison  replies  that,  if  the  error  be  not  at 
once  corrected,  relief  will  be  difficult,  for  it  is  of  a nature  to  take 
deep  root.  Mr.  Adams,  who  was  then  secretary  of  state,  states 
that  President  Monroe  signed  the  bill  unwarily  and  without 
perceiving  its  real  character,  and  he  adopted  the  practice,  which 
Mr.  Adams  carefully  followed,  the  only  just  and  constitutional 
practice,  of  renominating  every  officer  at  the  expiration  of  his 
commission  unless  some  official  delinquency  or  unfitness  pould  be 
proved  against  him. 

Both  Mr.  Jefferson  and  Mr.  Madison  clearly  foresaw  and 
described  the  consequences  of  the  four-years’  law.  On  the  4th  of 
May,  1826,  the  select  committee  on  the  reduction  of  patronage 
reported  to  the  Senate  a bill  providing  for  its  repeal,  to  repair  the 
mischief  as  much  as  possible.  The  report  stated  that  the  law 
operated  against  its  own  intent  and  served  to  turn  out  faithful 
officers  instead  of  retaining  them.  The  expiration  of  the  term  had 
come  to  be  regarded  as  the  creation  of  a vacancy  to  be  filled  by 
a new  appointment,  and  the  proposed  bill  was  intended  to  secure 
the  professed  purpose  of  the  original  law  by  confining  the  vaca- 
tion of  the  office  to  actual  delinquents.  The  repeal  bill  did  not 
become  a law.  The  evil  had  already  taken  the  deep  root  which 


*9 


Mr.  Madison  apprehended.  On  the  9th  of  January,  1835,  Mr. 
Calhoun,  in  his  famous  report  upon  the  extent  of  executive 
patronage,  again  proposed  the  repeal  of  the  four-years’  act,  declar- 
ing that  the  “ great  and  alarming  strides”  which  executive  patron- 
age had  taken  since  the  report  of  1826  made  the  repeal  impe- 
rative. 

The  debate  that  followed  in  the  Senate  is  memorable  for  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr.  Calhoun  both  arrayed  themselves 
against  Mr..  Madison  upon  the  constitutional  point  of  the  sole 
executive  power  of  removal.  But  they  both  agreed  with  Mr. 
Madison  in  condemning  the  four  years’  law,  yet  not  for  his 
reasons.  While  he  laid  chief  stress  upon  the  dangerous  opportu- 
nity which  it  opened  to  the  Senate,  they  saw  mainly  the  perilous 
enlargement  of  executive  power.  They  were  both  right.  The  law 
stimulated  both  senatorial  intrigue  and  executive  ambition,  because 
of  the  association  of  the  Senate  and  the  executive  in  the  appoint- 
ing power.  Mr.  Webster  did  not  deny  that  some  benefit  had  been 
derived  from  the  law,  but  he  thought  that  the  evil  results  were 
much  greater,  and  he  described  plainly  and  strongly  the 'demoral- 
ization and  degradation  produced  by  it.  The  law  itself  vacates 
the  office,  and  gives  the  President  the  means  of  rewarding  a 
favorite  without  exercising  the  power  of  removal.  It  thus  enables 
him  to  displace  a satisfactory  officer  without  the  responsibility  or 
odium  of  dismissing  him.  The  congressional  decision  of  1789, 
which  gave  the  sole  power  of  removal  to  the  President,  required 
positive  executive  action  to  cause  a vacancy.  The  law  of  1820 
vacated  all  the  chief  financial  offices,  with  all  the  places  dependent 
upon  them,  that  is,  practically  it  vacated  the  entire  civil  service 
of  the  country  during  the  term  of  every  president,  who  without 


20 


an  order  of  removal  could  fill  every  place,  small  or  large,  from 
Katahdin  to  Santa  Barbara,  from  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  to 
the  keys  of  Florida,  at  his  pleasure.  In  contemplating  the  possi- 
ble results  of  so  vast  a power,  Mr.  Calhoun  said  in  1835  that,  if 
it  should  ever  deal  with  a corps  of  a hundred  thousand  office- 
holders, the  friends  of  liberty  might  surrender  in  despair,  for  the 
people  could  not  resist  them  for  six  months.  Mr.  Calhoun’s 
gloomy  forecast  was  unjust  to  the  people.  The  corps  that  he 
foresaw  has  increased  far  beyond  a hundred  thousand.  But  the 
people  have  seen  the  nature  and  consequences  of  the  despotism 
founded  upon  a patronage  so  enormous,  and  have  already  begun 
to  overthrow  it. 

There  has  been  no  later  attempt  than  that  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to 
repeal  the  four-years’  law.  The  abuse  of  patronage  which  was  so 
loudly  derided  by  the  whigs  during  the  administration  of  Jackson 
and  Van  Buren  was  adopted  by. them  upon  their  success  in  1840, 
and  it  rapidly  became  the  accepted  tradition  until  at  last  it  was 
held  to  be  indispensable  to  government  by  party.  The  repeal  of 
the  four-years’  law  was  sought  no  longer,  because  the  law  proved 
to  be  one  of  the  most  convenient  means  of  the  prostitution  of  the 
public  service  to  personal  and  party  ends,  and,  as  patronage  grew, 
the  control  of  politics  by  the  office-holding  interest  became  more 
and  more  organized  into  a system  which  destroys  legitimate  party 
action  and  corrupts  the  government  at  its  very  source  in  the 
primary  meetings  of  the  people. 

As  the  country  extended  and  the  number  of  offices  necessarily 
increased,  it  is  curious  that  the  dangers  which  necessarily  spring 
from  a vast  executive  patronage  did  not  alarm  the  sons  of  fathers 
who  had  seen  such  patronage  to  be  the  untiring  foe  of  their  liberty 


2 I 


and  independence.  But  their  grandsons  at  least  are  aroused. 
They  see  that  the  absolute  dependence  of  the  great  army  of  em- 
ployes of  the  government  upon  personal  favor  instead  of  faithful 
discharge  of  duty,  creates  an  enormous  danger  to  republican  in- 
stitutions. They  see  that  personal  favoritism  is  the  tap  root  of 
the  evil  to  be  reformed,  and,  to  destroy  that,  they  have  approved 
the  Pendleton  bill.  But  the  fixed  limited  term  which  is  provided 
by  the  four-years’  bill  immensely  strengthens  the  evils  of  personal 
favoritism.  The  limited  term  fosters  utter  servility  and  lack  of 
self-respect,  because  reappointment  depends  not  upon  official 
fidelity  and  efficiency,  but  upon  personal  favor.  The  incumbent 
cannot  be  properly  devoted  to  his  duty,  since  it  is  necessary  to 
propitiate  the  influence  which  can  secure  reappointment.  The 
applicant  is  equally  busy  in  seeking  similar  influence  to  obtain  the 
place,  and,  as  fixed  terms  are  constantly  expiring,  the  wretched 
and  demoralizing  contest  is  perpetually  raging. 

The  repeal  of  the  four-years’  law,  therefore,  is  an  essential 
step  toward  the  complete  correction  of  the  personal  and  partisan 
prostitution  of  the  public  service  which  is  the  object  of  this  league. 
It  is  simply  a return  to  the  constitutional  theory  of  the  framers  of 
the  government  and  to  the  constitutional  practice  of  the  early  ad- 
ministrations. It  is,  further,  in  complete  accord  with  the  measures 
which  have  already  been  adopted  in  swift  and  strict  deference  to 
the  demand  of  the  country.  The  Pendleton  bill  provides  a 
method  of  subordinate  appointment  which  is  intended  to  discard 
personal  favoritism  as  the  basis  of  the  public  service  and  to  open 
the  service  to  all  citizens  who  shall  prove  their  fitness  for  it.  The 
fundamental  principle  of  the  bill  is  that  public  employment  of 
every  kind  and  degree  is  a public  trust,  and  that  the  public  interest 


22 


requires  only  that  the  trust  be  discharged  honestly,  economically, 
and  efficiently.  But,  in  the  great  multitude  of  minor  ministerial 
employments,  this  is  impossible  under  a system  of  arbitrary  re- 
moval, and  the  evil  is  practically  the  same  whether  the  removal  is 
effected  by  personal  whim,  or  supposed  party  interest,  or  by  the 
regular  course  of  law.  m 

Yet  our  position  on  the  subject  of  removal  must  be  clearly 
understood.  In  urging  the  repeal  of  the  four-years’  law,  we  advo- 
cate the  constitutional  tenure  and  nothing  more.  We  do  not 
plead  for  fixed  permanence  in  public  place,  nor  assert  a vested 
right  in  public  employment.  Due  subordination  and  discipline  are 
essential  to  all  effective  organized  service,  and,  therefore,  dismissal 
for  proper  cause  should  be  prompt  and  sure.  To  this  end  the 
power  of  removal  should  be  left  as  free  as  possible,  provided  that 
motives  for  its  illegitimate  exercise  are  destroyed.  Such  a provis- 
ion secures  both  proper  discipline  and  a just  tenure.  The  vital 
condition  of  efficient  devotion  to  duty  in  the  employments  which 
we  have  in  view  is  that  such  diligence  is  the  tenure  of  the  place. 
This  is  the  condition  of  private  service.  No  employe  in  a business 
house  or  company  pretends  to  hold  a vested  right  to  his  place. 
He  may  be  dismissed  at  any  moment.  But  he  knows  that  he  will 
not  be  dismissed  so  long  as  he  serves  faithfully.  This  conviction 
is  the  main-spring  of  good  service.  Men  remain  in  the  same 
business  employment  for  30  or  40  years,  not  because  of  any  pre- 
scribed life  term,  but  because  of  valuable  service.  Idle,  dissolute, 
dishonest  men  are  dismissed  as  soon  as  they  are  discovered.  But 
the  private  employer  who  should  insist  upon  rotation  in  place,  who 
should  dismiss  competent  and  experienced  clerks  for  no  other 
reason  than  that  they  had  served  in  his  counting-room  for 


2 3 


six  months  or  six  years,  and  because  there  were  other  per- 
sons in  the  world  who  might  prove  to  be  equally  competent,  or 
because  he  feared  that  they  might  come  to  think  that  they  had 
acquired  a vested  right  to  their  places,  would  be  a fit  subject  for 
the  writ  de  lunatico.  In  the  transaction  of  the  public  as  of  private 
business,  if  the  object  be  good  service,  a fixed  term,  unless  reap- 
pointment is  sure  to  follow  good  conduct,  is  absurd  and  necessar- 
ily demoralizing. 

But  if  merit  secures  continuance,  the  limitation  of  term  is 
mere  folly.  The  plea  for  the  four-years’  law  upon  which  the 
sound  practice  of  more  than  30  years  was  disturbed,  was  that  ac- 
counting officers  would  be  more  careful  in  the  discharge  of  duty 
if  their  offices  should  be  vacated  by  law  every  four  years.  Such  a 
plea,  however,  assumed  that  they  would  be  careful  because  care 
would  secure  reappointment.  According  to  this  reasoning  there 
would  be  no  inducement  to  be  careful  if  experience  should  prove, 
as  it  has  now  proved,  that  the  utmost  fitness,  long  experience,  and 
tried  ability  did  not  secure  reappointment,  and  that  the  fixed  term 
was  held  to  be  the  rightful  measure  of  the  claim  to  public  em- 
ployment. The  argument  was  that  the  term  was  limited  in  order 
to  make  the  officer  more  careful.  The  fact  was  that  the  utmost 
care  did  not  save  him  from  dismissal  at  the  end  of  his  term.  A 
year  ago  Mr.  Butterworth  of  Ohio,  in  an  elaborate  speech  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  declared  that  only  49  removals  had  been 
made  during  the  nine  months  of  the  administration.  Upon  look- 
ing at  the  figures  it  appeared,  as  I said  here  at  the  time,  that  of 
825  officers  whose  terms  had  expired,  the  President  had  reap- 
pointed 428  and  had  not  reappointed  397.  By  Mr.  Butterworth’s 
own  showing,  therefore,  nearly  50  per  cent,  of  the  officers  whose 


24 


terms  had  expired  had  been  dropped  from  the  service.  If  they 
were  unfit,  they  should  have  been  dismissed  without  awaiting  the 
end  of  their  terms.  If  they  were  fit,  they  had  been  dismissed 
merely  because  their  terms  had  expired.  In  what  way  can  such 
treatment  be  held  to  be  an  incentive  to  a more  careful  discharge 
of  duty-?  The  pretense  is  absurd.  However  honestly  the  four- 
years’  law  may  have  been  passed,  it  has  resulted  not  in  securing 
greater  official  diligence,  but  in  enabling  the  executive  to  traffic  in 
patronage  without  the  odium  of  removal. ' 

The  particular  argument  for  the  fixed  term  in  the  case  of  col- 
lecting and  disbursing  officers  has  been  expanded  into  a general 
assertion  that  security  of  official  tenure  tends  to  carelessness,  lazi- 
ness, insolence,  and  inefficiency.  The  reply  to  this  assertion  is  ob- 
vious and  conclusive.  If  the  security  be  based  upon  a right  of 
property  in  the  office,  of  which  the  incumbent  can  be  dispossessed 
only  by  a process  equivalent  to  a trial  in  the  courts,  there  is  reason 
in  the  argument.  But  it  is  totally  inapplicable  to  a security  of 
tenure  which  depends  wholly  upon  good  conduct  and  upon  the 
satisfaction  of  a superior  officer  who  has  no  illegitimate  motive  for 
dismissal.  Negligence  and  insolence  may  be  expected  in  an  of- 
fice the  chief  of  which  knows  that  every  clerk  under  him  was 
placed  at  his  desk  by  a personal  influence  which  the  chief  does 
not  dare  to  defy.  But  negligence  and  insolence  are  not  probable 
in  an  office  in  which  the  chief  stands  in  no  fear  of  personal  influ- 
ence and  depends  for  his  own  security  upon  the  good  work  of  his 
office.  To  the  whole  system  of  removal  by  lawsuit  we  are — if  I 
may  speak  for  the  league — resolutely  opposed.  Having  annulled 
all  reason  for  the  improper  exercise  of  the  power  of  dismissal, 
we  hold  that  it  is  better  to  take  the  risk  of  occasional  injustice 


25 


from  passion  and  prejudice,  which  no  law  or  regulation  can  con- 
trol, than  to  seal  up  incompetency,  negligence,  insubordination, 
insolence,  and  every  other  mischief  in  the  service,  by  requiring  a 
virtual  trial  at  law  before  an  unfit  or  incapable  clerk  can  be  re- 
moved. 

The  scheme  of  rotation  in  office  presupposes  that  a republican 
system  requires  that  every  man  shall  be  Employed  by  the  govern- 
ment for  a certain  limited  period;  or  it  asserts  that  continuous  ser- 
vice is  incompatible  with  free  popular  institutions  and  tends  to  mon- 
archy. But  no  scheme  of  rotation  could  be  devised  to  give  public 
employment  to  every  citizen.  The  truth  which  is  smothered  under 
the  demagogue’s  cry  of  rotation  in  office  is  this : That  in  a repub- 
lican government  it  is  desirable  constantly  to  bring  the  fresh  in- 
telligence and  ability  of  the  people  into  the  direction  of  public 
affairs.  This  is  undeniable.  And  it  is  because  the  spoils  system 
arbitrarily  excludes  this  intelligence  and  ability  from  every  branch 
of  the  public  service  that  it  is  dangerous  to  republican  government. 
But  to  secure  the  constant  reinvigoration  of  the  government  by 
fresh  talent  and  energy,  to  effect  such  changes  of  representatives 
and  of  policy  as  the  country  may  desire,  the  national  and  state 
constitutions  make  ample  provision  by  requiring  frequent  elections 
of  legislative  and  chief  executive  officers.  By  entrusting  to  those 
officers  the  selection  of  subordinate  ministerial  employes,  the  con- 
stitution assumes  that  such  selections  and  dismissals  will  be  made 
solely  with  a view  to  efficient  service.  The  public  hold  upon  such 
employes  of  every  kind  is  through  the  elective  officers  who  ap- 
point them.  But  the  public  interest  in  them  is  solely  that  they 
shall  be  appointed  and  removed  in  the  way  least  harmful  to  the 
public  service  and  to  the  general  welfare.  It  is  for  this  reason  that 


26 


when,  as  in  a recent  case,  a high  appointing  officer,  the  commis- 
sioner of  internal  revenue,  misused  his  authority  by  removing  an 
admirable  subordinate  to  make  place  for  a favorite,  a powerful  de- 
mand was  properly  made  in  the  press  that  the  President  should, 
dismiss  the  officer  who  had  flagrantly  abused  his  official  trust  to 
the  injury  of  the  public  service  and  the  discredit  of  the  govern- 
ment. The  universal  public  attention  which  is  now  directed  to 
such  acts,  and  the  sharp  censure  with  which  they  are  exposed  and 
condemned,  is  but  one  of  the  illustrations  of  the  general  deter- 
mination that  the  system  which  inevitably  breeds  such  abuses 
shall  be  reformed. 

In  moving  for  the  repeal  of  the  four-years’  law,  upon  which 
subject  Mr.  Whitridge  of  the  New  York  association  has  prepared  a 
brief  and  cogent  pamphlet  which  should  be  generally  circulated, 
we  shall  carry  our  appeal,  as  in  all  our  action;  to  the  great  Ame- 
rican tribunal,  the  intelligence  of  the  people.  If  any  body  of 
citizens  in  the  country  have  reason  to  trust  that  intelligence,  it  is 
the  civil-service  reformers.  The  history  of  American  politics  is 
most  encouraging  for  every  man  who  holds  firmly  to  the  American 
principle,  because  it  shows  that  reliance  upon  the  popular  reason 
and  conscience,  and  not  flattery  of  popular  passion  and  ignorance 
and  prejudice,  is  the  royal  road  of  progress.  Every  great  reform 
indeed  can  wait,  because  no  reform  is  effective  or  assured  until  it 
rests  upon  the  public  conviction,  and,  in  the  part  that  the  league 
has  taken  honorably  to  produce  that  conviction,  it  has  had  no 
reason  for  doubt  or  dismay,  but  every  reason  for  hope  and  good 
cheer.  In  the  task  that  yet  lies  before  it,  it  will  depend  upon  the 
same  popular  patriotism,  sagacity,  and  courage  which  have 
achieved  the  remarkable  victories  of  this  year.  The  watchword 


27 


of  the  hour  is  the  famous  order  of  the  German  marshal.  Amid 
the  smoke  and  roar  of  the  battle  as  his  blazing  lines  steadily- 
advanced,  the  old  soldier  placidly  took  snuff  and  said  quietly  to 
his  officers,  “ Patience,  gentlemen,  and  forward ! ” 


The  formation  of  local  Associations  in  every 
locality  where  a nucleus  can  be  found  is  much  to 
be  desired,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  League  will 
be  glad  to  assist  any  movement  in  that  direction. 
Each  Association,  when  formed,  should  establish 
an  official  connection  with  the  National  League. 
The  details  of  the  organization  having  been  fur- 
nished to  the  Executive  Committee  through  the 
Secretary,  that  Committee  is  authorized  to  admit 
the  association  to  membership  in  the  League, 
whereupon  it  is  entitled  to  elect  a member  of  the 
General  Committee  and  a representative  Vice- 
President.  The  Secretary  should  thereafter  be  kept 
informed  of  the  progress  of  the  work,  and  of 
changes  of  officers  as  they  may  occur. 

Address 

William  Potts, 

Secretary , 


NO.  4 PINE  ST.,  NEW  YORK. 


PRESIDENT. 

GEORGE  WILLIAM  CURTIS. 

VICE-PRESIDENTS. 


CHAS.  FRANCIS  ADAMS,  JR.. 
HENRY  BAYLIES, 

SILAS  BENT, 

CHAS.  J.  BONAPARTE, 

J.  H.  CARPENTER, 

ARNOLD  B.  CHACE, 

JOHN  C.  DODGE, 

ETHAN  ALLEN  DOTY, 
EDWARD  S.  DUNSTER, 
EDWARD  H.  ELWELL, 
WILLIAM  HAMERSLEY, 


HENRY  A.  HUNTINGTON, 
HENRY  LAMBERT, 

HENRY  C.  LEA, 

HENRY  LEE, 

D.  C.  McRUER, 

H.  M.  ODDIE, 

E.  RUSSELL, 


J.  D.  F.  SLEE, 
KINSLEY  TWINING, 
P.  G.  WATMOUGH, 
E,  S.  WHEELER, 
EVERETT  P.  WHEELER. 


SECRETARY. 

WILLIAM  POTTS. 


TREASURER. 

JOHN  C.  ENO. 


EXECUTIVE 

GEORGE  WILLIAM 

SILAS  W.  BURT, 

FREDERIC  CROMWELL, 

HENRY  HITCHCOCK, 

JOHN  JAY, 

A.  R.  MACDONOUGH, 

W.  W.  MONTGOMERY, 

J.  HALL  PLEASANTS, 


COMMITTEE. 
curtis,  Chairman. 

SHERMAN  S.  ROGERS, 
WILLIAM  CARY  SANGER, 
CARL  SCHURZ, 

MOORFIELD  STOREY, 
EVERETT  P.  WHEELER, 
FREDERIC  W.  WHITRIDGE. 
MORRILL  WYMAN,  JR., 


